I love going to readings at local bookstores, like Diesel on College Avenue, Berkeley. Often there are great people there. The guy who wrote The Kite Runner was there, with his wife and son. Maxine Hong Kingston has read there, and the godfather of Poetry Flash, Richard Silberg is a regular. One week it was a guy who had a good opening chapter which he read, so I bought the book. The rest of the book turned out to be a rather corny contrived 1950's detective story, crammed with gratuitous violence and cardboard characters, and seeded with bits of jargon he must have picked up from reading old True Detective magazines. The book was dreadfully boring (to me, with my own peculiar tastes and prejudices) so I skipped ahead looking for something interesting. I got all the way to the end of the book without finding anything very interesting at all. Hmmmmm... I thought, as writers, we are prone to getting so deeply immersed in "our thing" that we forget there is someone else to consider - the reader. 

You could tell that the writer really loved his ending, reveling in his own brilliance. It was a long, drawn-out, TV-style scene of meaningless violence, clumsily written in slow-motion. The pacing is just wrong. (Hey, here’s a thought: When ya write about violence, dontcha think maybe the writing should be sharp, fast-moving, or in other words, violent?) If you slow it down to do a close-up of every punch, every gory detail, and every button on the detective’s overcoat sleeve, it has no power. I would have hated to have to write a newspaper literary review for something like this and have to say, “The plot was glacier-like and the characters had no flesh, no bones and no heartbeat.”

(Okay, that's awfully harsh, girl. Who died and made you the chairman of the Pulitzer Prize Committee?) I actually have no experience or expertise in book reviewing, only that tired old basic principle I heard so many times when I was a young artist: "I don't know much about art, (literature, music, fill in the blank: _________ ) but I know what I like." 

Many thoughts this morning about writers and writing, and about how many books get published that are definitely not literature. But hello– The publishing business is not about literature, it's about selling books, and schlock sells better than art or literature. In a group I once frequented, the teacher/leader had two published books. I only recently got around to reading one of them, the most recent one. (It wasn't in the pubic library so I stalled around for years.) The book wasn't very good. In fact I was shocked at how weak and unimaginative the first page was. (I'm no expert about professional writing or publishing, but I do know, Ya gotta have something pretty good on the first page, or else nobody's gonna turn it over and read the second page.)

I might be a snob-reader, it certainly could be justifiably argued. Okay, I am. I tend to be too critical, of myself and others. But is there really much point in putting pen to paper for stuff like that?  Unless you do it to make money... Well, after all, that is a necessity in this world, to pay the rent, and writing is an honest profession, mostly.  So I admit, shamefully, that I'm a snob (or something equally wormlike) in my tough standards for writing. In my defense, I'm as hard on myself as I am on anyone else. Anyway, I have put the group-leaders's book into my Goodwill Store collection box, and somebody will love it.

Which brought me to the bottom line of what I think is true.  Whether you write for an audience, or for the benefit of humankind, or simply write for your own pleasure, writing is expression, which is always a good thing. It's a natural thing, like the lovely wordless songs babies sing in their cribs in the morning that wake you up with a laugh.  It's not exactly music... or is it?
_______________

You're welcome to visit my website, Writer To Writer, at  http://writer2writer.victoriachames.com